Make all games for 20 points. You can not join a game if the other players are more than, say, 3 or 4 ranks below yourself. But, you can join against all ranks above yourself. This will improve CC in many ways. 1.) It will allow everyone to play on an even playing field. ( no more of this affirmitive action attempt to even things out) Why should anyone have to risk 50 or 60 points to win 5 ? 2.) It will allow for a better, and more true leaderboard. Also you could arrange it so the leaders of each rank are the ones with the highest average rank opponents. This would hinder those that play only lower ranks. You can have a ZERO- POINT option for those that wish to mentor or play friends for no wager of points.

The Neon Peon wrote:So this is increasing farming because the farmers get more points, and it will be more profitable for me to go and play a cook because I win the same points as I would if I managed to beat a general?

No, You can not join games against players that are X ranks below yourself (3 or 4). also the players in each rank are listed on the leaderboard in order of the highest average rank opponents. so, a certain score will only get you the rank, but those with highest average rank opponents will be listed at the top of said rank.

If you play someone clower in rank, you have "acheived" less and therefore get fewer points than if a lower ranked person wins against a high ranked person.

The problem is actually the opposite of what you suggest. The problem right now is that while the system works pretty well for the lower ranked folks, att he very highest ranks it doesn't.

Why? Because every game is partially luck. A certain percentage of games will always be won on pure, dumb luck ... when your opponent starts with 2 whole continents and gets perfect dice to boot, the only way you will win is if you are playing an absolute and complete numbskull or a deadbeat.

At the very highest ranks, the number of points they can win from low ranked players is less than they will almost certainly lose due to pure luck. This is particularly true when some of those cooks are really half-way decent players masquerading as cooks "for fun".

The reasons why are somewhat debateable. Personally, I think that its because when the formula was set up, there were not so many ranks. The ranks were added, but the formula was not adjusted to even things out up there.

On the other hand, if the higher ranks are gauranteed to win points against cooks, then all they have to do is just play a bunch of cooks (farming) and the conquerer will end up being the one who has the time to play the most. ...but that is a while debate onto itself.

Bottom line I feel that this suggestions, while well intended, won't really solve the problem of farming.

The Neon Peon wrote:So this is increasing farming because the farmers get more points, and it will be more profitable for me to go and play a cook because I win the same points as I would if I managed to beat a general?

No, You can not join games against players that are X ranks below yourself (3 or 4). also the players in each rank are listed on the leaderboard in order of the highest average rank opponents. so, a certain score will only get you the rank, but those with highest average rank opponents will be listed at the top of said rank.

Except you already have people who "pretend" to be cooks so they can then have the "fun and glory" of grabbing points. Perhaps not precisely farming, but very similar.

The graduated score system works, though some tweaks might be appropriate.

If you play someone clower in rank, you have "acheived" less and therefore get fewer points than if a lower ranked person wins against a high ranked person.

The problem is actually the opposite of what you suggest. The problem right now is that while the system works pretty well for the lower ranked folks, att he very highest ranks it doesn't.

Why? Because every game is partially luck. A certain percentage of games will always be won on pure, dumb luck ... when your opponent starts with 2 whole continents and gets perfect dice to boot, the only way you will win is if you are playing an absolute and complete numbskull or a deadbeat.

At the very highest ranks, the number of points they can win from low ranked players is less than they will almost certainly lose due to pure luck. This is particularly true when some of those cooks are really half-way decent players masquerading as cooks "for fun".

The reasons why are somewhat debateable. Personally, I think that its because when the formula was set up, there were not so many ranks. The ranks were added, but the formula was not adjusted to even things out up there.

On the other hand, if the higher ranks are gauranteed to win points against cooks, then all they have to do is just play a bunch of cooks (farming) and the conquerer will end up being the one who has the time to play the most. ...but that is a while debate onto itself.

Bottom line I feel that this suggestions, while well intended, won't really solve the problem of farming.

I dont think that you quite understand. Farming is eliminated by not being able to join against players lower than 3 ranks below yourself. and you are also protected from loosing 60 points when a cook joins your game. also your possition within a certain rank is determined by your average rank opponent, so those that play on average the highest ranks will be listed above those that do not. The point system as it stands now is nothing more than an attempt at affermitive action. lol.

porkenbeans wrote:I dont think that you quite understand. Farming is eliminated by not being able to join against players lower than 3 ranks below yourself. and you are also protected from loosing 60 points when a cook joins your game. also your possition within a certain rank is determined by your average rank opponent, so those that play on average the highest ranks will be listed above those that do not. The point system as it stands now is nothing more than an attempt at affermitive action. lol.

I believe this will just change the nature of farming.

You would have a few players at the top who would consistantly win and, before long, be well above everyone else. (at the top)

They will then encourage, rather than discourage noobs, etc. to join their games.

Points at the top will accumulate.

Before too long those who are good and started earlier will be so far ahead of everyone else that it will be impossible for anyone else to reach Conquerer (i.e. point inflation).

The graduated point system is necessary to see that this inflation of points does not happen. The system might need tweaks, but if there is a problem it is at the high end, as I said earlier, not at the lower end.

The low end problem is not one of points ... it is do you want to have to play the higher ranked players or do you want to play those closer in skill (theoretical skill, anyway)?

Farmers, by-the way, are NOT the truly high ranked players. Once you get up to a certain point, farming will LOSE you points, because you will lose more, due to pure luck, than you can gain unless you happen to have an unusual lucky streak.

porkenbeans wrote:I dont think that you quite understand. Farming is eliminated by not being able to join against players lower than 3 ranks below yourself. and you are also protected from loosing 60 points when a cook joins your game. also your possition within a certain rank is determined by your average rank opponent, so those that play on average the highest ranks will be listed above those that do not. The point system as it stands now is nothing more than an attempt at affermitive action. lol.

I believe this will just change the nature of farming.

You would have a few players at the top who would consistantly win and, before long, be well above everyone else. (at the top)

I can see optional "slot limits", but then why the point change?

WTF are you talking about, lol. The players at the top would be the best players, period. Not only would they have to achieve the rank, they would also have to keep their opponent average the highest. What on earth is keeping you from seeing the logic.

They will then encourage, rather than discourage noobs, etc. to join their games.

Points at the top will accumulate.

Before too long those who are good and started earlier will be so far ahead of everyone else that it will be impossible for anyone else to reach Conquerer (i.e. point inflation).

The graduated point system is necessary to see that this inflation of points does not happen. The system might need tweaks, but if there is a problem it is at the high end, as I said earlier, not at the lower end.

The low end problem is not one of points ... it is do you want to have to play the higher ranked players or do you want to play those closer in skill (theoretical skill, anyway)?

Farmers, by-the way, are NOT the truly high ranked players. Once you get up to a certain point, farming will LOSE you points, because you will lose more, due to pure luck, than you can gain unless you happen to have an unusual lucky streak.

points will only get you to the rank, your opponent average will put you on top. which is where you should be if your the best.

They will then encourage, rather than discourage noobs, etc. to join their games.

Points at the top will accumulate.

Before too long those who are good and started earlier will be so far ahead of everyone else that it will be impossible for anyone else to reach Conquerer (i.e. point inflation).

The graduated point system is necessary to see that this inflation of points does not happen. The system might need tweaks, but if there is a problem it is at the high end, as I said earlier, not at the lower end.

The low end problem is not one of points ... it is do you want to have to play the higher ranked players or do you want to play those closer in skill (theoretical skill, anyway)?

Farmers, by-the way, are NOT the truly high ranked players. Once you get up to a certain point, farming will LOSE you points, because you will lose more, due to pure luck, than you can gain unless you happen to have an unusual lucky streak.

points will only get you to the rank, your opponent average will put you on top. which is where you should be if your the best.

so dont you get it ? the person with the most points is not ness. on the top.

porkenbeans wrote:WTF are you talking about, lol. The players at the top would be the best players, period. Not only would they have to achieve the rank, they would also have to keep their opponent average the highest. What on earth is keeping you from seeing the logic.

First, win percentage says much more about the type of games a person plays, not so much about skill. Only if you look at the whole picture ... the types of games they play, the score and the win percentage can you get anything close to a "clear" picture of a player's skill (and even then its pretty murky).

But the real point is about the score change you suggest.

Right now, the score adjusts. You play a lower ranked player, you get fewer points, but lose more. You play a higher ranked player and gain more, lose fewer. This causes people to move up and down a lot, at least up until you get so high in rank that the points you could gain even from winning all but the absolute impossible to win because of luck games. (if you lose 30 points, but gain only 1 point, you have to win 30 games to equal 1 loss, but you often lose more than 1 in 30 games due to pure random dice factors -- and the real stretch is actually much higher).

This is one reason those at the top play mostly each other (farmers are generally from the slightly lower ranks). But, though they play a lot, they get very few points for each game. So, after a certain point, they move up only very slowly. The Conquerer shifts regularly, but it is more or less the same group of people who stay up there and compete for the title. The thing is ALL of them are slowly moving up. I cannot remember the exact figures (and its not important to this discussion anyway), but say a year ago the top scorer might have been around 5000. Now maybe they are at 6000 (again, not sure of exact figures, but it IS going up). Eventually, it will be higher.

As new person, what is the likelihood that you will get that high? Even if you are very good, it takes much longer to reach 6000 than 5000. This is particularly true because the higher you go up, the fewer points you CAN earn per game. BUT, in the current system there is the "leveler". The lower point person (lower ranked person) has an inherent advantage because they can earn more points for the same game than the higher ranked person. You move up quickly at first, then slow down. Even though the points involved in high rank games is fewer than in other games, this principal still applies. It keeps the score from going up even higher, faster.

You would do away with that. Suddenly, those who have been here a long time will be raking in points, points, points. The lower down, newer folks simply won't be able to catch up, with the possible exception of someone who plays a phenomenal number of games quickly.

Also, since you allow lower ranked players to join the higher ranked games (but not the reverse), they could open a lot of games and simply wait for newbies to join or advertise for them to join. Since they are much better, they will win most of the time. They accrue points quickly. They keep accruing points. Eventually those folks have so many points that it becomes very, very difficult for any new player to catch up. Even if the new player plays a lot and wins a lot, the older players will always have played and won more and therefore will have more points.

This would not solve farming. It would change it. It would create or add to point inflation.

porkenbeans wrote:WTF are you talking about, lol. The players at the top would be the best players, period. Not only would they have to achieve the rank, they would also have to keep their opponent average the highest. What on earth is keeping you from seeing the logic.

First, win percentage says much more about the type of games a person plays, not so much about skill. Only if you look at the whole picture ... the types of games they play, the score and the win percentage can you get anything close to a "clear" picture of a player's skill (and even then its pretty murky).

But the real point is about the score change you suggest.

Right now, the score adjusts. You play a lower ranked player, you get fewer points, but lose more. You play a higher ranked player and gain more, lose fewer. This causes people to move up and down a lot, at least up until you get so high in rank that the points you could gain even from winning all but the absolute impossible to win because of luck games. (if you lose 30 points, but gain only 1 point, you have to win 30 games to equal 1 loss, but you often lose more than 1 in 30 games due to pure random dice factors -- and the real stretch is actually much higher).

This is one reason those at the top play mostly each other (farmers are generally from the slightly lower ranks). But, though they play a lot, they get very few points for each game. So, after a certain point, they move up only very slowly. The Conquerer shifts regularly, but it is more or less the same group of people who stay up there and compete for the title. The thing is ALL of them are slowly moving up. I cannot remember the exact figures (and its not important to this discussion anyway), but say a year ago the top scorer might have been around 5000. Now maybe they are at 6000 (again, not sure of exact figures, but it IS going up). Eventually, it will be higher.

As new person, what is the likelihood that you will get that high? Even if you are very good, it takes much longer to reach 6000 than 5000. This is particularly true because the higher you go up, the fewer points you CAN earn per game. BUT, in the current system there is the "leveler". The lower point person (lower ranked person) has an inherent advantage because they can earn more points for the same game than the higher ranked person. You move up quickly at first, then slow down. Even though the points involved in high rank games is fewer than in other games, this principal still applies. It keeps the score from going up even higher, faster.

You would do away with that. Suddenly, those who have been here a long time will be raking in points, points, points. The lower down, newer folks simply won't be able to catch up, with the possible exception of someone who plays a phenomenal number of games quickly.

Also, since you allow lower ranked players to join the higher ranked games (but not the reverse), they could open a lot of games and simply wait for newbies to join or advertise for them to join. Since they are much better, they will win most of the time. They accrue points quickly. They keep accruing points. Eventually those folks have so many points that it becomes very, very difficult for any new player to catch up. Even if the new player plays a lot and wins a lot, the older players will always have played and won more and therefore will have more points.

This would not solve farming. It would change it. It would create or add to point inflation.

thank you so much for your apparent interest in this subject. I really do appreciate the conversation. Like myself, I see that you have put a considerable amount of time pondering this matter. I do agree with most of your conclusions, as they are mine as well. You seem to be a smart individual, please take a little time to ponder my corrections on your logic. 1st. Farmers are indeed among the top ranks. Take rabbiton for example. The last time I checked, he was over 200 straight wins. That was over a month ago. All of those wins were against noobs that started freestyle games. If you will notice the default poss. in start a game is freestyle. The noobs dont stand much of a chance as it is, let alone in freestyle mode. 2nd. If the top players opened ''a lot of games and waited for noobs to join'' It would only lower their O.A.R. (opponent average rank) Thus moving themselves down the leaderboard. Try to get yourself away from thinking of points as the determining factor of who occupies the top slots on the leaderboard. Points only get you to a certain rank. After that, your O.A.R. determines your poss. among the others of that same rank. Once you get to Field Marshal rank, the player with the highest O.A.R is crowned Conq. This means that those players that have been around a long time, and have accrued thousands of points, have no great, and in my opinion, unfair advantage. The Conq. will indeed be the best damn RISK player at CC. Which by the way, just so happens to be, me. hehehe

You are basically trying to create an entirely differant track from the point system, but I really don't think what you have described will be any more fair that the current system. One of the biggest issues (in addition to the fact that the high rankers don't benefit much from playing lower ranks). becuase the inherent problems have more to do with how you rate specific game types, playing styles and not so much just whom you play.

Is team play really the same as singles? Is freestyl the same as sequential? ETC. Your idea would just add another complication, more room for dispute.

Aside from that, point will still exist ... whether conquerer is tied to them or not. And, points will accrue as I described.

As for the high rank/ not high rank....

A new person starts out above a cook, so majors, colonels, some bridadiers can gain points by playing them. It is when they get a lot of cooks that problems can come. But, many cooks are truly terrible strategists (not all, but many). Also, I hesitate to say this, but some of those "newbies" are likely multis intentionally throwing games. I am not accusing any particular person. There can be a lot of reasons for someone to "throw" games initially as a multis newbie even when not playing themselves. (that is, the winner/the farmer is not necessarily a multis by any means) I am just saying that is definitely part of this "mix".

Anyway, there are other threads that get into the mathematics of this better. I am just using generalities right now. I have seen the math, know it is true, but don't have the energy to duplicate it right now.